SCOTUS Unanimously Rejects Lower Court’s Whole Foods Ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a unanimous 9–0 ruling siding with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a procedural dispute involving Whole Foods, sharply criticizing how a lower federal court handled the case.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the opinion, which centered not on the merits of the lawsuit itself, but on whether the case properly belonged in federal court.
Jurisdiction at the Center of the Dispute
The case stems from a lawsuit filed in Texas by Sarah and Grant Palmquist, who allege that baby food sold at Whole Foods and manufactured by Hain Celestial Group harmed their young child due to elevated levels of heavy metals.
The Palmquists brought product liability and negligence claims against Hain Celestial Group, along with state-law breach-of-warranty and negligence claims against Whole Foods. According to reporting from Fox5, Hain — a company based in Delaware and New York — attempted to move the case into federal court.
That effort ran into a key obstacle: diversity jurisdiction.
“Federal courts may exercise diversity jurisdiction only when no adverse party is from the same state, but Whole Foods and the Palmquists are all Texas citizens. As a result, the district court lacked jurisdiction as the case stood upon removal,” the Supreme Court wrote.
Hain sought to have Whole Foods dismissed from the case, arguing the retailer was improperly included. A federal district court agreed and removed Whole Foods from the proceedings — clearing the way for the case to remain in federal court.
But the 5th Circuit reversed that decision, ruling that Whole Foods had been properly joined and that the case should have remained in Texas state court. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that conclusion and sent the case back to Texas.
Importantly, the justices did not weigh in on the Palmquists’ underlying claims.
The original complaint alleged that their child, just over two years old at the time, “was diagnosed with a range of physical and mental conditions that some doctors attributed to heavy-metal poisoning.”
The high court also referenced a 2021 House subcommittee report that found certain baby foods, including products made by Hain, contained elevated levels of toxic heavy metals.
“In 2021, a subcommittee of the U. S. House of Representatives released a staff report finding that certain baby foods, including Hain’s, contained elevated levels of toxic heavy metals. Following the report’s release, the Palmquists sued both Hain and Whole Foods in Texas state court,” the Court noted.
High Court Activity Continues
The decision comes amid a series of major rulings from the Supreme Court.
Last week, the justices struck down President Donald J. Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose global tariffs in a 6–3 ruling. Within hours, however, President Trump signed a new executive order from the Oval Office implementing a 10 percent global tariff under separate statutory authority.
According to Fox News, Sen. John Kennedy addressed the tariff ruling during an appearance on “Fox & Friends Weekend,” arguing that the political impact could be minimal.
Kennedy pointed to roughly $300 billion in tariff revenue already collected under President Trump’s trade policies and emphasized that key trade agreements had already been finalized.
“My Democratic peeps better be careful what they ask for because if he gives back $300 billion worth of tariff money to the business community in America, this economy’s [going to] roar, man, and the midterms are only a few months off,” Kennedy said. “Stevie Wonder could see this decision coming,”
Tariff collections reached $30.4 billion in January alone — a 275 percent increase compared to January 2025 — underscoring the scale of revenue generated under the administration’s aggressive trade posture.
A Procedural Win — With Bigger Questions Ahead
Tuesday’s ruling in the Whole Foods case underscores the Supreme Court’s insistence on strict adherence to jurisdictional rules — even in high-profile consumer cases.
While the justices avoided weighing in on the baby food allegations themselves, the decision reinforces limits on federal court authority and sends the matter back to Texas, where it began.
As the Court continues to shape the legal landscape — from jurisdictional disputes to executive trade authority — its rulings are reverberating well beyond the courtroom.